…and this is a 
Dr Michael Egnor challenges evolution!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 18, 2007 9:44 AM, by PZ Myers
Time magazine has a science blog, Eye on Science, and the writer, Michael Lemonick, doesn't hesitate to take on the Intelligent Design creationists. A recent entry criticizes the Discovery Institute's silly list of dissenters from 'Darwinism'. Not only is the number that they cite pathetically small, but they rely on getting scientists whose expertise isn't relevant.
The Discovery Institute is at it again. "Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin's Theory On the Rise," proclaims the latest press release from this organization that pretends to be interested in science. Read on and you'll find that the number of scientists on Discovery's list is up to 700. Yes, really! Seven hundred scientists out of tens of thousands in the world. Anyone spot a little intellectual dishonesty here?
But wait, there's more! Of these scientists, how many would you guess are biologists? If you guessed "a majority," you'd be wrong. How many come from distinguished institutions? Not too awfully many. But here's one they trumpet in the release:
"'Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology,' says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award winning brain surgeon named one of New York's best doctors by New York Magazine."
Now here's the funny thing: the distinguished brain surgeon Dr Michael Egnor shows up in the comments and spouts the usual boilerplate claptrap we hear from these guys all the time: oh, he was a 'Darwinist' once upon a time, but then he was convinced by the complexity of the cell that 'Darwinism' had a problem. Sweet Jebus, but one thing that pisses me off is ninnies who equate complexity with design; random processes are excellent tools for making things extravagantly complex.
But OK, he's made the standard IDist mistake based on ignorance and a shallow understanding of the mechanisms. He goes further and makes a challenge. I love it when they do this.
I am asking a simple question: show me the evidence (journal, date, page) that new information, measured in bits or any appropriate units, can emerge from random variation and natural selection, without intelligent agency.
Show me. If you can't, then why is my question fradulent?
Lemonick takes an indirect tack, unfortunately, and just points out (rightly so) that his article was about the bait-and-switch the Discovery Institute is pulling with this list, bringing in unqualified signatories and trumpeting their irrelevant credentials, and sorry guy, but neurosurgery ain't a skill that necessarily equips one to address questions of evolution. What he doesn't do is address his challenge.
I don't know why not. It's easy.
Go to PubMed. In the search box, type "gene duplication evolution". (OK, there is a trick to it: effective searches require you to know some of the terms people would use in describing the phenomenon.) Click on "Go".
Here's one result.
Labbe P, Berthomieu A, Berticat C, Alout H, Raymond M, Lenormand T, Weill M. (2007) Independent Duplications of the Acetylcholinesterase Gene Conferring Insecticide Resistance in the Mosquito Culex pipiens. Mol Biol Evol. [Epub ahead of print]
Gene duplication is thought to be the main potential source of material for the evolution of new gene functions. Several models have been proposed for the evolution of new functions through duplication, most based on ancient events (My). We provide molecular evidence for the occurrence of several (at least 3) independent duplications of the ace-1 locus in the mosquito Culex pipiens, selected in response to insecticide pressure that probably occurred very recently (< 40 years ago). This locus encodes the main target of several insecticides, the acetylcholinesterase. The duplications described consist of two alleles of ace-1, one susceptible and one resistant to insecticide, located on the same chromosome. These events were detected in different parts of the world and probably resulted from distinct mechanisms. We propose that duplications were selected because they reduce the fitness cost associated with the resistant ace-1 allele through the generation of persistent, advantageous heterozygosis. The rate of duplication of ace-1 in C. pipiens is probably underestimated, but seems to be rather high.
Notice that this is fresh science, from the date [Epub ahead of print]. The entire first page and almost all of the second page of results are from 2007. If you go to page 141 to get the oldest citations, they go back to 1967; you'll find titles like "Evolution of protamine: a further example of partial gene duplication" and "Evolution from fish to mammals by gene duplication" and "Gene duplication and the evolution of enzymes".
There are 2807 papers indexed by PubMed on this subject. Michael Egnor has been unable to find any of them, and I suspect he has never even looked. The Discovery Institute may like to trumpet his expertise in neurosurgery as an indicator of the significance of his dissent from evolutionary biology, but I think I'd rather trumpet his ignorance of evolutionary biology as an indicator of the uselessness of the Discovery Institute's list.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
So he can find design where there is none, but can't find papers on a subject when there is thousands.
Sounds like I would want to use a different doctor.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | February 18, 2007 10:10 AM
Have to say, I find the whole idea of a surgeon looking for a god in biological complexity kinda off-putting...
I think I prefer a more old-fashioned sort of surgeon. You know... the kind who think he is god.
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 18, 2007 10:15 AM
Oh no. Dont tell Orac...
Posted by: ERV | February 18, 2007 10:15 AM
So, PZ, why don't you post this there? You are better equipped than I, a humble environmental geochemist (my BS is in zoology but very old) to counter what appears to be a full attack on Mr. Lemonick by the kooks. He could certainly use your expertise.
Posted by: ChemBob | February 18, 2007 10:17 AM
I was just thinking that Orac won't like this.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | February 18, 2007 10:17 AM
PZ is probably affraid that he is going to hurt their feelings - they might call him the "pro-Darwin attack dog P.Z. Myers" again (and that is a direct quote BTW).
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | February 18, 2007 10:20 AM
Nor, evidently, has he read the paper I cited in the reader comments on that blog:
Kimura, M. (1961) "Natural selection as the process of accumulation of genetic information in adaptive evolution." Genetical Research, 2:127-140.
It demonstrates that natural selection drives an increase the Shannon information content of the genome, and it's all of forty-six years old. Are these people inveterately incapable of reading the peer-reviewed lit?
Posted by: Tristram Shandy | February 18, 2007 10:23 AM
I did post a comment with a link back here. They have to be approved by the author before they appear, though.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 18, 2007 10:23 AM
You don't need natural selection to create new information - mutation alone will do that just fine.
Nor do you need to study for years to perceive that this is true - it's obvious, and it's so very obvious that people would have to study for years to learn not to see it.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 18, 2007 10:24 AM
Newsweek had an article in November about antibiotic resistant infections, and how they "arise" and "develop". I wrote a short, succinct letter chastising them for not using the correct term "evolution", and how of course people can claim that they never see evidence for evolution when major news outlets don't use the proper terminology for it even when it's the entire basis for their story. It didn't get printed. I'm not surprised.
Posted by: Carlie | February 18, 2007 10:26 AM
Weren't we just through this with Behe? Didn't Behe simply wave away all the material he says doesn't exist, on the grounds that it doesn't address his challenge, in his opinion? I'm confident that Egnor is staking out the same territory: Goddidit, papers claiming goddidit are disallowed by a biased establishment, papers looking for any other mechanism are completely missing the reality, and therefore irrelevant. Does anyone seriously expect Egnor to admit his faith is in error?
Posted by: Flint | February 18, 2007 10:34 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 18, 2007 10:34 AM
I just did a pubmed search for "natural selection Shannon information" and came up with not only an article demonstrating exactly what he asked for, but one available online for free to boot:
Evolution of biological information
Thomas D. Schneidera
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 July 15; 28(14): 2794-2799.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10908337
"The results, which show the successful simulation of binding site evolution, can be used to address both scientific and pedagogical issues. Rsequence approaches and remains around Rfrequency (Fig. 2b), supporting the hypothesis that the information content at binding sites will evolve to be close to the information needed to locate those binding sites in the genome, as observed in natural systems (4,6). That is, one can measure information in genetic systems, the amount observed can be predicted, and the amount measured evolves to the amount predicted."
Posted by: TheBlackCat | February 18, 2007 10:40 AM
I gotta say that when I saw the title and first couple of lines of this essay, I thought it was going to be a hypothetical story, given the unusual name of Michael Egnor. So I tried reversing the letters of the last name and came out with "ronge". Pronounce it yourself.
OT and ad hominem, I know. Ironic nonetheless.
Posted by: Gvlgeologist | February 18, 2007 10:46 AM
If you read through the comments, Egnor spouts a lot of other ridiculous clap-trap, showing that he knows nothing about evolution outside of what the IDists have told him.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | February 18, 2007 11:06 AM
Egnor claimed that the existence of irreducible complexity is a prediction of ID. In fact, as pointed out by Chris Ho-Stuart, it is a prediction of evolutionary theory actually made by Herman Muller, in 1918. As Elliott Sober points out in his recent article, "What is wrong with intelligent design?," it is easy enough to construct a version of ID that accommodates a set of observations already known. Sober shows in detail why that doesn't make it science.
Posted by: John Pieret | February 18, 2007 11:07 AM
Along these same lines are comments by Prof. Henry Schaefer of the University of Georgia, a highly-accomplished computational chemist. His inane arguments appeared in a column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Schaefer column
Here's a rebuttal.
Posted by: beccarii | February 18, 2007 11:50 AM
Part of our problem is that there is seemingly a never-ending stream of this BS coming from the Creationist/ID/Magical Wahoo in the Sky'ers no matter how thoroughly or how often we refute their arguments. They just come back with something else that is utterly, or at least ultimately, void of logic, reason and evidence. I have, in actuality, argued extensively with certain of these people on various blogs to the point at which they eventually seem to shut up (although Egner seems incapable of shutting up no matter how insipid his arguments), but then they sneak back later.
The problem is that I simply don't have time to deal with them every time I see them bringing it up (which they often do in subtle ways to infect otherwise rational conversations), having a real job that addresses actual scientific issues of importance and all. I assume that most of us who read/blog on Pharyngula have the same situation (frankly I'm a little surprised that a brain surgeon has time and isn't busy continually honing skills in his actual area of knowledge).
Maybe we need to form some sort of tax-exempt organization that pays intelligent graduate students to counter this nonsense when it arises. If one of us spots something that is putatively aberrant with regard to science and promotes their presumptive "big guy in the sky" instead, then we notify the students to attack with logic and evidence. We certainly need something to counter the nonsense that is so prevalent in this very oddly-turned society of ours.
Posted by: ChemBob | February 18, 2007 11:52 AM
Quite frankly, the brain is far too complex to be understood. Certainly far too complex ever to hope to repair - especially via surgery. Anyone saying otherwise is a fraud and a liar and is under the spell of the radical fringe BrainSurgeonists - clearly a cult. There should be new rules that allow me to experiment with this demented idea - I'm sure that if I can demonstrate my inability to do brain surgery then I will completely prove once and for all it can't be done.
This is all an elitist plot against those of us that know, really deep down know in our guts, that leaches and blood letting are the only answers. If this wasn't so why would God have given us leaches and sharp objects.
Posted by: Jim in STL | February 18, 2007 11:57 AM
So, creationists in the US dont seem to like evolution.
That's something disturbing to me, because it's really at the very core of everything that we are, all the Darwin stuff aside.
To explain what I mean, I need to clarify my view of what evolution is.
Evolution is a strive to better oneself, because you admit that you are not perfect.
If you have that strive within you, you will evolve as a human being and a as a person.
What evolution theory is saying is that all of reality has that urge to improve itself.
American christians creationists claim that our world and us humans where all created perfect to begin with, and the Lord wouldn't try to, or need to, improve on his creation.
That in itself kinda kills of the very idea of religion, now doesn't it?
According to christianity, man is a sinner and far from perfect, and the entire purpose of religion is for man to better himself.
I'm saying that maybe evolution is for nature what religion is for man in that sense.
Darwin claimed that the features that was most useful and enrichening for a spieces would flourish and that features that didn't made for a better survival - not only mere survival, because a number of the spiecies that died out could make it through the day already, only not good enough - would fade out and die.
He also claimed that this was a focused process that dumb luck could only interfere with on a very short-term basis, so it's a fair process.
Now, the entire of reality tries to improve an better itself, and the end result are some deeply humanistic values developed by a spieces that wont satisfy itself with mere survival, and which continuesly through history fights bitterly against forces like nazism, slavery, racism, rape, and mindless violence of any sort, forces that represents it's past and something it desperatly tries to shed.
Now, that's what happened sientifically speaking, because that's where we are right now, and therefor that's what evolution ended up producing, and sience will have to account for that fact whether they like it or not.
So, here we are then, after some 60-40 000 years of trying to better ourselves, and continuing a process that spanned all life that we know of since the dawn of time.
And this is an evil force, is it?
An evil force that encompasses the entire reality of this world, and every living thing on it?
No it's not, because regardless how this happened, sience and religion are facing the same facts and the same end results.
It's almost non-important who's right, considering this.
Some will jump in and say that religion played a big part in this effort to evolve humanistic values and democracy, and that's my point, regardless how I view that statment.
It's can be described that way, yes, from one point of view, and it's also evolution at the same time - because that's the very meaning of the word.
To evolve.
So, what am I missing here?
If it's in the very nature of our world, our reality, to improve itself, then what in Gods name is the conflict?
Well, the Bible kinda says that the world just ain't that old - not directly, but it kinda suggests that it isn't.
That's one hell of an argument..not.
Well, here's a thought, the good book says that it's to be read plainly, it actually instructs the reader to do so, for it not to be misread, or something.
So, it's probably not supposed be "decrypted" that way, so that one can assume stuff that isn't really there, like claims of the earths true age, because I've checked, and I can't find any such claim.
And in any way, the catholics probably know more about this than I do, and the good Pope agrees with me.
The true message is how man should relate to God and nature, and it's not about engaging in some obscure statistical mathematical excercises.
If God wanted us all to be mathematicans, he would have made us much better scientists, and that can't be right, can it?
Right!
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 12:03 PM
Typical crap from people who have egos so big they think they must have been designed by god.
Posted by: Steven | February 18, 2007 12:03 PM
Actually, if you know how to translate this request correctly, you won't bother messing around looking for citations from PubMed. What we need is someone competent in math and statistics who has the time to fiddle around for a while playing with equidistant letter sequences in the Book of Genesis.
Posted by: Sastra | February 18, 2007 12:05 PM
Mikael Bergkvist wrote:
Uh oh. Will I be the first to point out: "No. No, that is not what evolution theory is saying at all. That is a distortion of the theory as filtered through a spiritual mindset, and promoting this as the way to 'reconcile' science with religion will not only be unscientific, but will end up causing more misunderstanding, confusion, and problems, rather than less?"
Depends on how fast I can type, and who else is online, I think.
Posted by: Sastra | February 18, 2007 12:11 PM
Too late. I've been aware of Dr. Egnor for a few days now, because he's been even more of an idiot of himself than usual. It's so depressing that I don't know if I'll even bother to blog about it. There seem to be so many damned idiot surgeons falling for this crap that I have a hard time working up a healthy head of Respectful (or not-so-respectful) Insolence about it right now.
Posted by: Orac | February 18, 2007 12:12 PM
"That is a distortion of the theory as filtered through a spiritual mindset"
No it's not.
It depends on how you define "improve", but if there's no curve of increased density of information, then evolution becomes a flat line, and the word itself pointless.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 12:14 PM
No doubt Dr. Egnor will show up in the comments here if PZ's link is approved.
Should I go and get the paper bag for my head again, after our orthopedic surgeon "friend" Dr. David Cook embarrassed me for the ignorance about basic biology that so many of my profession seem to like to trumpet to the world?
Posted by: Orac | February 18, 2007 12:20 PM
Oh, and, of course, they will accuse me (and PZ) of being "uncivil," as well.
I plead that, after refuting the same canards over and over and over again, I have come to lack the patience to be nice to antievolutionists, particularly when I've been on call for the past six days and am presently sitting around waiting for a patient to hit the ER.
Posted by: Orac | February 18, 2007 12:23 PM
"causing more misunderstanding, confusion, and problems, rather than less?"
You ended that with a question mark, and that says it all, I think. :-)
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 12:26 PM
Sometimes we need to IGNORe the EGNORs of the world. Sometimes we need to expose them to their peers and this is probably Orac's job.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 18, 2007 12:41 PM
Mikael, I don't have the time or spirit to refute your every point but I have to say you have a basic misunderstanding of what we are discussing in terms of evolution. (Others, please forgive my oversimplifications herein). Biological evolution doesn't have some vague notion of "betterment" in mind, it is merely a response in terms of the reproductive success of individuals within a group to pressures and habitat stresses upon potentially varying organism phenotypes. Certain types of stressors might result in certain phenotypic variants being more reproductively successful within that environment. Should the stressing variable persist, physical isolation occur, etc., then the changes might become dominant and persistent within that subgroup of the population. Sigh. Etc.
Posted by: ChemBob | February 18, 2007 12:41 PM
Ah, but how many of these papers give units for this elusive quantity, "information"? You'll note that is what he was asking for - not that mutation can produce new functions, structures or alter/improve old ones, so he gets to keep his point of view. Of course, he really ought to tell us what he means by "information" and why it is required.
Posted by: G. Shelley | February 18, 2007 12:47 PM
"Biological evolution doesn't have some vague notion of "betterment" in mind, it is merely a response in terms of the reproductive success"
I know that, I went to school like everyone else here.
Regardless, it's the result that we see, and I'm not saying it's any thought behind it mind you, but it's how it ends up that interests me.
My point is that christians are taking a stand against evolution on a unsound theological ground - and their point of view is theological, is it not?
Their basis of critique flies in the face of the very purpose of religion, which is betterment, or evolution, and the word has an actual meaning you know, regardless of how that happens, whether it's a result of actual thought or of how nature is set up.
Therefor, it's not logical for christians to react this way.
They should expect evolution in some form or another, but instead they react as if they think they are already perfect and dont need to better themselves.
- It's just not what the good book says they should do, and I wanted to point this out.
Sofar, science is the only one expected to explain itself, and maybe it's time to turn the tables.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 1:07 PM
.. and why in goods name did you feel that you had to explain evolution to me?
It's not like it's not common knowledge.
Insulting people is not very productive, and that's a free advice from me.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 1:11 PM
They should expect evolution in some form or another, but instead they react as if they think they are already perfect and dont need to better themselves.
- It's just not what the good book says they should do, and I wanted to point this out.
So you are a christian endeared with evolution?
Not sure this is the right place to come gunning for god, even when endorsing evolution. ;-)
Posted by: Kevembuangga | February 18, 2007 1:22 PM
I explained it because the underlying premise of your lengthy post incorrectly posited betterment with the processes of biological evolution in your statement, particularly the last sentence below:
Posted by: ChemBob | February 18, 2007 1:24 PM
I find the argument about "complexity" perhaps the stupidest argument ever. I'm not an engineer, but I work with many of them. One hallmark of a well-designed process is simplicity, not complexity. Something with a lot of parts that all must work is a recipe for a process that breaks down a lot.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | February 18, 2007 1:30 PM
After reading the DI story (and that truly is what it is, is it not?), it's just their usual "we look for any 2-second-long excuse to prove evolution wrong" vitriol.
All the elements are there for the preaching and self-victimization to take place:
- dissenting "scientists"
- touted up figures on the numbers of "dissenters"
- statements from said dissenters ringing the same ol' creationist bells about Darwin's theoretical inadequacy
- assertions that Darwin's theory "crumbles" by the minute
- assertions of questions tens of thousands (indeed likely more) of scientists have somehow completely overlooked for 150+ years
- hollow calls and encouragement for "real scientific inquiry" and consideration
- et al ad nauseum
Every single creationist/ID article asserting evolution's fallacy follows this same pattern. I certainly hope Mr. Egnor comes over and asks his questions, because he doubtless will be given the research for the very answers he seeks.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 18, 2007 1:30 PM
To clarify..
"So, creationists in the US dont seem to like evolution.
That's something disturbing to me, because it's really at the very core of everything that we are, all the Darwin stuff aside"
So, aside of the evolution theory, we have the generic evolution concept in itself, and it puzzles me that christians react so violently to this at all, since science as a whole seem to be ok by them.
They dont seem to mind microwaved food or cars, or tv for that matter, all products of sience.
It's the notion that creation needs to 'better itself' that somehow insults their belief that God is perfect, that maybe he didn't 'get it right from the start', but this is where they loose me, because the Bible clearly states that man and the animals are anything but perfect.
- Christianity exists solely to correct man, infact.
So, being in their mindset, I dont really get how they arrived at this point of view.
I'd like someone christian to explain that to me.
Why is evolution such a problem?
--
Aside of that, I'm not going to endure further lessons of common knowledge.
Thanks.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 1:37 PM
"So you are a christian endeared with evolution?"
*Sigh*, no.
I'm just curious about this very wierd mindset of theirs, because I can't identify the source of it.
How the hell did they arrive at it?
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 1:42 PM
Went looking for some information/background on Dr. Egnor and found this perhaps pretinent statement--by none other than Jesus himself.
It seems that Dr. Egnor and his friends at Discovery Institute, Focus on the Family, and other organizations and persons that feel that their worldview is threatened by "just a theory" (read: heresy) as natural selection would agree with this revelation which heads a reposting of the great mandate of the 700 at the blog "Our Lady Of The Roses" by "Baysides":
http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=159&i=358
Quote:
Ranks of renowned scientists doubting Darwin's theory on the rise - 700 now on public list...
Only One Creator...
Ranks of renowned scientists doubting Darwin's theory on the rise - 700 now on public list...
"Man shall not create a new world as he seeks. For there cannot be a lasting world without His God. And I speak not of the false idols and gods that man creates in his human nature! There is only one Creator....
"Little by little you go forward--I say, little by little, but I should stress that many is running fast and faster to the edge of the abyss. In his seeking for power and knowledge, man seeks to dethrone his God and create his own god. But who shall set himself above his Creator, even attempting to control birth and death? I say unto you, you shall never learn the secrets, the sacred secrets of death and life, for these are controlled by the Eternal Father."
- Jesus, February 10, 1978
(snip)
Unquote.
Jesus said it, they believe it, that settles it.
Posting also includes a definitive image of YHWH doing his creation thing. (His beard strangly seems evocative of Darwin's in several depictions.)
This site seems to pass along various visions and revelations received by one particular sect of the faithful, with a strict adherence to their own true catechism.
By their words ye shall know them.
Posted by: Chemist | February 18, 2007 1:44 PM
Couple things I've noticed today..
1st, Disco has discovered the Time blog too:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/02/times_magazines_darwinist_thou.html
I actually only clicked on the Google news link to get the actual link for the DI blog.
2nd, following the links on the Creationist sites I got to this article (http://www.tldm.org/News8/evolutionAntiScience.htm) that appears outright upset that we have advanced out of the medieval times:
Yes, we are much less superstitious today. We haven't burned a witch in years. What a shame...
Posted by: daenku32 | February 18, 2007 2:12 PM
Coincidentally, today, a surgeon who knows a lot about appendices debunks creationist "facts" about the human appendix.
Posted by: Vasha | February 18, 2007 2:13 PM
Maybe I can't understand their mindset simply because there's no mind to be set..
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 2:17 PM
Maybe we need to form some sort of tax-exempt organization that pays intelligent graduate students to counter this nonsense when it arises.
As an underpaid graduate student, I would be very pleased to be involved in such a program. I occassionally consider myself "intelligent" (at least as intelligent as their moronic designer, anyways), and I spend far too much time on-line reading and responding to IDiot claptrap already.
If I register myself as a charity, can the Pharynguloids please send me a cheque the next time I tackle one of these asstards?
Posted by: TheBrummell | February 18, 2007 2:27 PM
Does anyone have an estimate of how many scientists there are in the world? I'm thinking of the "classic" sciences here--like biology, chemistry, physics, etc--not the social sciences.
Posted by: ScienceBreath | February 18, 2007 2:37 PM
For what it's worth.. the people defending ID refer to the complexity of information as their argument, and this is perhaps the oldest trick in the book.
It's essentially the Chewbacka defense from the now famous eisode of South park.. "It makes no sense, so please ignore all the other parts of this case that does make sense.."
Bang, heads explode..
Evolution is not a theory of how life has come into existence, it's about how it evolved *once it did*, and the amassed evidence of evolution taken place, from dated archeological findings to correlating features inbetween spieces, is basically irefutable, unless you are a complete nitwit.
Nature has driven evolution forward, and we can see features evolve layer by layer, there's no point in denying it by lazy observations of DNA, which we dont even fully understand yet, and therefor cannot draw any conclusions from, supporting either viewpoint.
We can't test DNA according to predictions unless we know the mechanisms well enough to evaluate the results properly, we dont even know for sure if 'junk DNA' really is 'junk'.
Any claims by ID'ers relating to the complexity of DNA is therefor void.
It's the Chewbacka defense.
We dont get this part, so we'll skip the rest too.
Complexity that we do not fully understand yet, set against facts and findings from dated rock that we understand completely, and can test in a multitude of ways in accordence with both physics, anatomy, and chemistry, all established fields of science.
The choice is pretty obvious.
It's not that evolution does not have unanswered questions, but that it has a wealth of answered questions, and in that, it's similar to all scientific fields.
- In comparison with astrophysics, wrestling with dark matter and dark energy, it's downrigth easy to understand.
This simple fact tends to get lost all the time for some reason though, especially when discussing the matter with those of faith.
They also tend to lock down on the 'fact' that evolution cannot explain how life came to be - ignoring the fact that this theory doesn't have to explain that.
From the point in time when life appeared, regardless of how it happened, evolution has left very visible footprints behind, embedded in solid rock.
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | February 18, 2007 2:53 PM
I have a copy of the NSF's Science and Engineering Indicators for 1998 (I've also got some more recent editions, but they started distributing them on CD; the paper copy is so much easier to work with). In the US, there were 3.3 million scientists and engineers working in 1998. About 40% are engineers, 10% biologists, 9% physicists and chemists, 10% social scientists, 30% math and computer scientists.
This is a US-centric document, so it doesn't say much about other countries. It does mention that about 20% of the science degrees in the world are issued by the US.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 18, 2007 2:59 PM
I don't know how many scientists there are in the world. However, 93% of all scientists in the US Academy of Sciences do not believe in any God.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 18, 2007 3:05 PM
[Cheap shot warning]
I think we now have a new term for surgeons and other medical practitioners who flaunt their medical credentials while saying stupid things about science:
"EGNORamuses"
[We now return you to reasoned debate]
Posted by: John Pieret | February 18, 2007 3:48 PM
everyone here is quick, to point out fallacious arguments, and provide counter-claims. these rebuttals only serve a purpose if the proponents of ID are truly ignorant. i think there's a case to be made for deliberate deception on their part. spamming the net with pro-ID pages advances their agenda. I'm no expert on him, but i've heard leo strauss, an influential political science professor at harvard openly advocated lying to constituents, if it could be considered in thier best interests, ie. "saving souls"
Posted by: jaydee | February 18, 2007 4:09 PM
Most humorous is Egnor's confidence that because he hasn't received answers to his satisfaction in the comment section of a weekly, general interest, pop'lar news magazine's blog, "Darwinists" have no answers.
Although I'm disappointed in Lemonick, in that he could have pointed readers in the right directions in his responses (which he appends at the end of others' posts). Instead he's feeding chum to the self-caged.
Posted by: Foggg | February 18, 2007 4:36 PM
PZ, I think you should post your comment left at the "Time Mag" site here so that we can see it now, and craft seperate responses.
PS: I hope it is not just a link back here. That would be weak.
Posted by: Gary Hurd | February 18, 2007 5:46 PM
Part of the problem comes from writers and readers who think that the "biomedical" community is a single homogeneous pool of experts and expertise.
Not all doctors are scientists. Not all scientists are doctors.
Different paradigm. Different methodology. Different education. Different literature.
The medical profession USES some results from Biology, the same way that Engineers and Technologists use some results from pure Science.
But doctors are trying to prevent disease, ameliorate suffering, and not trying to do research on humans.
Does it matter if the airline pilot on your next flight has a PhD in Aerodynamics? Do you care if the guy spraying insecticide to kill termites is an Aerosol Sciences researcher? Do you care if your auto mechanic does Combustion Science research? Do you care if the guy who mows your lawn is a Botanist?
Once I had to have some stitches taken out of a wounded hand. A friend at the time said: "Why go to a doctor? You're a Scientist, right?"
Do you care if the President and Vice President of the United States are Political Scientists or Cliometric Researchers? Oh, never mind about that one. Too late.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | February 18, 2007 5:55 PM
For more ignorant ranting about evolution:
http://tinyurl.com/2wsmyj
(http://www.townhall.com)
Posted by: khan | February 18, 2007 6:00 PM
In medical school we had a joke, "Q: Why don't surgeons have hemorrhoids?
A:God made them perfect Ass Holes."
Very popular at psychiatry faculty parties.
The come back is, "Q: What is a surgeon?
A: A physician able to finish training."
Posted by: Gary Hurd | February 18, 2007 6:02 PM
For more ignorant ranting about evolution:
http://tinyurl.com/2wsmyj
(http://www.townhall.com)
Posted by: khan | February 18, 2007 6:04 PM
"Once I had to have some stitches taken out of a wounded hand. A friend at the time said: "Why go to a doctor? You're a Scientist, right?"
Good question. 33 years ago, I had some 30 odd stitches to remove from my scalp. I taught my wife to do it. If I can reach them, I do it myself. Putting them in is a different matter.
What was your friend's point?
Posted by: Gary Hurd | February 18, 2007 7:13 PM
Gary Hurd: What was your friend's point?
I thought at the time that he didn't know a scientist from a doctor. But you cast reasonable doubt on that hypothesis. I suppose that I could have removed the stitches myself, but I had a scientist's doubt that there might be something necessary that I didn't know, such as what symptoms of complications to look for, given that 2 specialists had examined the freshly bleeding wound at the Royal Hospital in Edinburgh, Scotland, to make sure that there was no damage to my future ability to type (and thus continue to earn a living).
Doctor, will I be able to play the violin when I recover from this injury?
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | February 18, 2007 7:34 PM
PZ, your reply to Egnor makes no sense.
Egnor's question was in the context of the genetic code: from whence comes the symbolic representation of amino acids by nucleotide triplets?
Your reply was to google "gene evolution duplication". I fail to understand your line of reasoning. Please explain.
Let's look at Egnor's question.
Egnor: "Can random heritable variation and natural selection generate a code, a language, with letters (nucleotide bases), words (codons), punctation (stop codons), and syntax?"
Egnor: "In 150 years, Darwinists have failed to provide even rudimentary evidence that significant new information, such as a code or language, can emerge without intelligent agency."
Egnor: "I am asking a simple question: show me the evidence (journal, date, page) that new information, measured in bits or any appropriate units, can emerge from random variation and natural selection, without intelligent agency."
My response to Egnor: Your question is misguided. Of course random heritable variation and natural selection are inadequate to generate the genetic code that is itself the source of heritable variation. Realize that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not seek to explain the origin of the genetic code. There is not yet a consensus theory for the origin of the genetic code. The inadequacy of the theory of evolution by natural selection to explain the origin of the genetic code is not a problem because the theory need not explain every biological phenomenon to be useful. Scientists who loosely speak of evolution as if it were a catchall umbrella (e.g. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.") are not correct. The light of evolution illuminates only a limited domain of biological phenomena and the origin of the genetic code lies outside that domain.
Posted by: Herb West | February 18, 2007 8:34 PM
I wonder if there's some sort of pattern to the stooges and shop-dummies the ID Creationists find to parade around. Eg enough of one such that some (evolutionary?) computer software could make reasonable predictions over whom they'll target next (and perhaps allow that putative posse of impoverished students a chance to head them off at the pass instead, with a spot of remedial education).
Posted by: SEF | February 18, 2007 9:07 PM
Actually, PZ's answer perfectly addresses the question that appears in the quote. The fact that Egnor throws out a bunch of other, mostly unrelated claims doesn't mean that PZ is on the hook to provide an answer for all of them. People like Egnor use that tactic precisely because it's very difficult to address multiple, randomly strung together claims all at once.
It's clear though that Egnor thought he had a knock-down argument by saying that new "information" could not evolve. Most ID flunkies would know better than to use that one. It's the kind of claim that can be easily addressed with empirical evidence.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | February 18, 2007 9:28 PM
Q: Doctor, will I be able to play the violin when I recover from this injury?
A: I don't see why not.
Q: That funny, I never could before!
Marx brothers, IIRC.
Posted by: Gary Hurd | February 18, 2007 11:07 PM
"i think there's a case to be made for deliberate deception on their part. spamming the net with pro-ID pages advances their agenda. I'm no expert on him, but i've heard leo strauss, an influential political science professor at harvard openly advocated lying to constituents, if it could be considered in thier best interests, ie. "saving souls"" -Jaydee
Jaydee: Ronald Bailey had a nice article on this, coincidently in the context of neo-cons advocating intelligent design:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30329.html
Posted by: Middle Professor | February 18, 2007 11:17 PM
I have a degree in electrical engineering, so most of the time, I'm simply trying to absorb all the biology on this blog.
But the challenge from Dr Egnor is purely a mathematical one, so step aside, biologists - he asks how new information, measured in bits, can emerge from random variation. He also asks for a specific journal cite. Since a mathematician hasn't answered this yet here, an EE will have to do as a substitute.
The amount of information in a message is determined by its complexity, and the very essence of complexity is randomness. A string of one million bits (ones and zeros) that simply alternate 0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1... has very little complexity, thus very few bits of information. But generate that series of one million bits randomly and guess how many bits of information you have? Answer: very close to one million.
Random changes to genes almost always increase the mathematical complexity, and thus the bits of information, in the gene. Of couse, it's then up to natural selection to filter out which of those mutations are viable.
Instead of a journal article for Dr Egnor, he just needs to read a little in an undergraduate textbook on information theory.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | February 18, 2007 11:22 PM
Random changes to genes almost always increase the mathematical complexity, and thus the bits of information, in the gene. Of couse, it's then up to natural selection to filter out which of those mutations are viable.
This is all good and true, but the underlying, insidious nature of the argument has nothing to do with actual information theory (Dembski and Scordova claimed to have revolutionized the field with their own quantifications but have thus far failed to even semi-rigoriously define anything recognizable to any professionals in the field). All it is is a recycled version of the "2LOT disproves evolution" permuted with irrelevant jargon.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 18, 2007 11:52 PM
FYI: The current edition of the NSF Science and Engineering Indicators (2006) can be found online at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/
A very handy reference tool.
Posted by: Gerry L | February 19, 2007 1:34 AM
Even more strange, Michael Egnor won't be able to find these publications, even if you print 'em out and whack him on the head with them! I think this phenomenon itself demonstrates evolution, don't you think?
Posted by: Amit Joshi | February 19, 2007 2:31 AM
Part of the complaint of the "Damn it Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Scientist" and one of the commenters -- I mention no names -- is that it's hard for an uneducated person to understand how the mechanism of evolution itself can evolve, and so, in some half-assed recursive intuition, if evolution can't evolve the mechanism of evolution in a way that a fool can guess, then evolution must be wrong.
Here's the head-end of a neat paper on how real scientists considers the issue.
===============
Robustness Can Evolve Gradually in Complex Regulatory Gene Networks with Varying Topology
Stefano Ciliberti1,2, Olivier C. Martin1,2,3,4,5, Andreas Wagner6*
1 Laboratoire de Physique Théoique et Modèles Statistiques, Universite Paris-Sud, Orsay, France, 2 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Universite Paris-Sud, Orsay, France, 3 Laboratoire de Genetique Vegetale du Moulon, Universite Paris-Sud, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 4 L'Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Universite Paris-Sud, Gif-sur-Yvette, 5 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Universite Paris-Sud, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 6 Department of Biochemistry, University of Zurich, Switzerland
The topology of cellular circuits (the who-interacts-with-whom) is key to understand their robustness to both mutations and noise. The reason is that many biochemical parameters driving circuit behavior vary extensively and are thus not fine-tuned. Existing work in this area asks to what extent the function of any one given circuit is robust. But is high robustness truly remarkable, or would it be expected for many circuits of similar topology? And how can high robustness come about through gradual Darwinian evolution that changes circuit topology gradually, one interaction at a time? We here ask these questions for a model of transcriptional regulation networks, in which we explore millions of different network topologies. Robustness to mutations and noise are correlated in these networks. They show a skewed distribution, with a very small number of networks being vastly more robust than the rest. All networks that attain a given gene expression state can be organized into a graph whose nodes are networks that differ in their topology. Remarkably, this graph is connected and can be easily traversed by gradual changes of network topologies. Thus, robustness is an evolvable property. This connectedness and evolvability of robust networks may be a general organizational principle of biological networks. In addition, it exists also for RNA and protein structures, and may thus be a general organizational principle of all biological systems.
Funding. This work was supported by US National Institutes of Health grant GM063882 to AW, by the European Economic Community's (EEC) FP6 Programme under contract IST-001935 (EVERGROW), and by the EEC's Health Protection and Promotion under contracts HPRN-CT-2002-00307 (DYGLAGEMEM) and HPRN-CT-2002-00319 (STIPCO).
Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Editor: Roy Kishony, Harvard University, United States of America
Citation: Ciliberti S, Martin OC, Wagner A (2007) Robustness Can Evolve Gradually in Complex Regulatory Gene Networks with Varying Topology. PLoS Comput Biol 3(2): e15 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030015
Author Summary
Living things are astonishingly complex, yet unlike houses of cards they are also highly robust. That is, they have persisted for billions of years, despite being exposed to an endless stream of environmental stressors and random mutations. Is this robustness an evolvable property? Do different biological systems vary in their robustness? Has natural selection shaped this robustness? These questions are very difficult to answer experimentally for most systems, be they proteins or large gene networks. Here we address these questions with a model of the transcription regulation networks that regulate both cellular functions and embryonic development in many organisms. We examine millions of such networks that differ in the topology or architecture of their regulatory interactions, that is, in the "who interacts with whom" of a network. We find that radically different network architectures can show the same gene expression pattern. The networks' robustness to both mutations and gene expression noise shows a broad distribution: some network architectures are highly robust, whereas others are quite fragile. Importantly, the entire space of network architectures can be traversed through small changes of individual regulatory interactions, without changing a network's gene expression pattern. This means that high robustness in gene expression can evolve through gradual and neutral evolution in the space of network architectures. Our results show that the robustness of transcriptional regulation networks is an evolvable trait that natural selection can change like any other trait.
===============
As a computational biologist in my so-called spare time, I think that is so very cool!
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | February 19, 2007 4:42 AM